Sunday, January 3, 2016

Today This Is What I Learned

When one listens to a "sermon" from the supposed clergy who sell their wares to the public, you begin to realize one undeniable fact. They contradict each other, they rationalize every facet of human character flaw, and then they just divide everyone. But the most important thing to remember is, that this is what divides America and most any society where people are constantly at war and have some of their society in poverty and some in wealth. That divide is caused by what is known as "exceptionalism". In the U.S., as a kid, I remember hearing about what made the United States the greatest country on earth. Anyone who has heard the Jeff Daniels speech on the television show from the series "Newsroom", knows we have fallen WAY BEHIND in all those things. https://youtu.be/VMqcLUqYqrs
I want to explain my version of what has happened, as I see it. We all know that unlimited greed on the part of consumers was blamed on the recession at first. But later, when we looked at what really happened and investigated, we find that median income stayed the same while profits went through the roof. Who was holding most of the profits? CEOs and shareholders. PURE UNLIMITED GREED.
The idea we were taught as children (how to share) was that when we reached the mountain top, we would all get there together. But some aren't happy with that and it isn't just because of greed, they couldn't excuse their greed without help. So Wall Street Bankers and CEOs decided to take their share out now. I have heard it explained in an analogy like this:
"Imagine you have 3 Americans, one is a CEO and 2 middle class Americans, one of those being a union laborer. They are given 12 Twinkies. The CEO takes 11 Twinkies for himself and tells the other two, "You better watch out that Union Worker wants part of your Twinkie."  They are not totally at fault because some have been told that they DESERVE MORE than everyone else because of, you know, "GOD".
You might ask yourself, "HOW can people like that live with themselves?" They had help and that is what this article is about.
Today a friend of mine mentioned part of Calvinist doctrine that I will simply cut and paste some text from a website for description. He talked about the doctrine of "the elect".
< Taken from (citation follows) http://www.angelfire.com/realm/raised-to-life/Articles/Elect.html >
"The articles written on this site often use the term "the elect" which can create some confusion. Unless otherwise specified, the term "the elect" is used as Calvinists define the term. They define "the elect" as those people God chose before the foundation of the world and predestined for salvation. This includes both those people who were born again, who now are born again, and also includes those people who are not yet born again but whom God chose to be born again and are predestined to ultimately be born again. It is important that you understand this concept when you read these articles.
On this site, the true meaning of "the elect" is understood to be those people who become elect/chosen by virtue of their union with the Elect One, Jesus Christ, who was chosen before the foundation of the world. No one else was chosen before creation but Him, and no one is chosen unless they become united with Christ who is the Chosen One. Hence, you as a reader must know when we are referring to "the elect" as Calvinists define the term, and when we are referring to the elect as we define the term. Whenever, the term "the elect" is used, please assume it is being defined as Calvinists define it, and whenever you see the term "the chosen" used, please assume it is being defined as this site defines it.
The same is true with the term "Total Depravity." When the term is used on this site it refers to "Total Depravity" as Calvinists define it, and not as other groups who also use this term. The distinctive Calvinist trait is that Total Depravity is defined as the inability to believe the gospel message."

Basically what this means is that they believe God "gave men free will" as they always say. but then he decided who in the future was going to be deserving of being born again (he knew that because he knows everything that is going to happen from now on) and "blessed them with success and wealth" because they are hard working and deserve it. They seem to have selective memory about their own privilege and opportunity. You and I know of people like that and when you hear them speak in public, what it sounds like they actually SHOULD say is, "My dad gave me a million dollars, you can do it, too!" You and I know this is ridiculous. But the minister wants  them to come back and he wants LOTS of their money. So he tells them that they are rich because they are "chosen by God" and therefore they are hardworking and deserve it (even though it was predestined to happen to them) and everyone else is a lazy slob. Poor people are supposed to be the laziest.

SO, ...if you look closely at this, this is another variation on what L.B.J. said about racism being used for manipulation purposes:
"If you can convince the lowest white man that he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll even empty his pockets for you.” -
(And that guy became president when J.F.K. was assassinated. But meanwhile, back at the pulpit.)

So, here is the Arizona Mildman quote on that topic as it relates to this discussion:
"If you tell the richest greedy person that they are better than everyone else, then they won't notice you are advertising mythology and picking their pockets, while he watches the shiny stuff you are dangling in his mind. Hell, if you tell him everyone else is NOT chosen by God to be successful because they are predestined to be lazy, then he will empty his pockets out for you, almost whenever you ask him to. And he will never do another altruistic thing the rest of his life because that would be, in his mind, how you enable the lazy poor people."

So, once again we are dealing with people who are being told IN CHURCH that they are "chosen by God" to be privileged and successful and others don't matter because they were not chosen. That leads to a feeling of superiority and that type of exceptionalism will cause some to be greedy without realizing (except at those times when they are faced with social situations that smack them in the face with their own lives) that they are being greedy because this "MAN OF GOD" told them that they 'deserve more than everyone else' and it isn't a surprise that he tells them that. He also tells them that they need to give more because they are "growing a garden of faith" and the money is "seeds of prosperity" that will grow for the "Elect" to reap later on.

You know the kind of guy I am talking about. He clings to religious and fake religious precepts as his only argument, and when you try to point things out that are facts, he runs away.

That brings us to the point I want to make about something I heard today. Antonin Scalia, whom I consider delusional and unfit tor any public office, let alone the presidency of the United States. He recently said, while giving speeches, "The Supreme Court Justice told his audience that the constitution only prevented the government from showing a preference for one sect over another, not from actions that gave preferential rights to religious Americans over those who do not follow any religion.
“To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from? To be sure, you can’t favor one denomination over another but can’t favor religion over non-religion?”
This isn’t a new position for Justice Scalia, by any means. In October of 2014, he said essentially the same thing at a speech for students at Colorado Christian University.
In that speech, he essentially suggested that secularists (by definition, those who believe religion has no role in government) were trying to feed the public a lie by claiming that the First Amendment’s religious freedom clause offered the same protections for the rights of the nonreligious as for those of any religion.
According to Americans United, he also gave a similar statement in 2009, to a Jewish newspaper.
“It has not been our American constitutional tradition, nor our social or legal tradition, to exclude religion from the public sphere. Whatever the Establishment Clause means, it certainly does not mean that government cannot accommodate religion, and indeed favor religion. My court has a series of opinions that say that the Constitution requires neutrality on the part of the government, not just between denominations, not just between Protestants, Jews and Catholics, but neutrality between religion and non-religion. I do not believe that. That is not the American tradition.”

He is saying that Religion is supposed to be favored over nonreligion. Who even would think to start an argument like this while supposedly representing ALL of the United States and it's citizens.

I will mention the statues that grace the front of the building for the Supreme Court, the very building this man works in and walks into every day he attends chambers.

Contemplation of Justice
Fraser described the female figure to the left of the main steps as “a realistic conception of what I consider a heroic type of person with a head and body expressive of the beauty and intelligence of justice.” A book of laws supports her left arm and a figure of blindfolded Justice is in her right hand.
(The significance of the blindfold worn by the statue of Justice is that the law/court is supposed to be blind to outside influence, not influenced through cultural conditioning as in ANY sort of preference, including religious or any other ideology.)







Authority of Law


Also called the Guardian or Executor of Law, Fraser described the male figure to the right of the steps as “powerful, erect, and vigilant. He waits with concentrated attention, holding in his left hand the tablet of laws, backed by the sheathed sword, symbolic of enforcement through law.” The Latin word for law, LEX, is inscribed on the tablet.
(No man of bias whose whole life is influenced by his own political leanings or policies of personality ideals can truly execute the law properly. This is not supposed to be a contest of right versus left, it is supposed be about reality and justice.)


No comments:

Post a Comment